MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384493347 · doi:10.1111/jopr.13735

Survival of fixed prosthetic restorations on vital and nonvital teeth: A systematic review

2023· review· en· W4384493347 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Prosthodontics · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUmm Al-Qura University
KeywordsDentistryMedicineInclusion and exclusion criteriaSurvival rateOrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To evaluate the survival rate of full-coverage tooth-supported fixed prosthetic restorations, single crowns (SCs), and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), taking into consideration the potential influence of tooth-vitality, presence and type of post, and type of prosthetic restoration material. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In October 2022, two authors independently conducted a search in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus electronic databases as well as a hand search to identify clinical human studies on full-coverage SCs and FDPs supported by vital and/or non-vital abutments and/or a combination of both, with a minimum observation period of 24 months. RESULTS: Out of 4198 studies identified through the database search and 22 through hand searching, 26 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis of the present systematic review. Included studies scored six points and more according to Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The highest estimated 5-year survival rate was observed for (metal-ceramic and all-ceramic) SCs on vital teeth (98.3%; 95% CI [98.1, 98.6%]) and all ceramic SCs on non-vital teeth with fiber post (95.0%; 95% CI [94.5-95.4%]). Metal-ceramic SCs on vital teeth (97.1%; 95% CI [95.6-98.7%]) showed a statistically significant higher estimated 5-year survival rate compared to metal-ceramic SCs with cast metal post (90.7%; 95% CI [87.4-94.0%], P < 0.001), fiber post (91.3%; 95% CI [90.9-91.6%], P < 0.001) and without post (85.7%; 95% CI [80.7, 90.6%], P < 0.032). All-ceramic SCs with fiber post had a statistically significant higher estimated 5-year survival rate (95.0%; 95% CI [94.5-95.4%]) compared to metal-ceramic SCs on non-vital teeth with fiber post (91.3%; 95% CI [90.9-91.6%], P < 0.001). SCs (all-ceramic and metal-ceramic) with fiber post had a statistically significantly higher estimated 5-year survival rate of (92.7%; 95% CI [92.4-92.9%]) than SCs made of metal-ceramic and retained by cast metal post (90.7%; 95% CI [87.4-94.0%], P < 0.001). For FDPs, the 5-year survival rate was significantly higher for FDPs on vital abutments (84.9%; 95% CI [75.9, 93.9%]) compared to FDPs retained by non-vital abutment/s (81.3%; 95% CI [80.3, 82.2%], P = 0.049) irrespective to presence, type of post, and FDPs material. The results are limited by the limited number of studies and the presence of uncontrolled confounding clinical variables. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the study, tooth vitality is suggested to contribute positively to the survival of SCs and FDPs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it